Use of childcare in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets - Short statistical report No.1 Contract ref. no ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Use of childcare in the
EU Member States and
progress towards the
Barcelona targets
Short statistical report No.1
Contract ref. no. JUST/2011/GEND/PR/1081/A4
April 2014
Justicepublication is commissioned by the European Union Programme
for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS (2007-2013).
programme is implemented by the European Commission. It was
established to nancially support the implementation of the objectives
of the European Union in the employment, social airs and equal
opportunities area, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the
Europe 2020 S
seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape
the development of appropriate and ve employment and social
legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and EU candidate
and pre-candidate countries.
For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/progress
This document has been prepared for the European Commission
however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission
cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.
ISBN 978-92-79-36171-5
doi: 10.2838/54302
RAND Europe is an independent, not-for-pro t policy research organisation
that aims to improve policy and decisionmaking for the public interest
through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily re ect
the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark
© European Union, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
RAND OFFICES
SANTA MONICA, CA • WASHINGTON, DC
PITTSBURGH, PA • NEW ORLEANS, LA • JACKSON, MS • BOSTON, MA
DOHA, QA • CAMBRIDGE, UK • BRUSSELS, BE
www.rand.org • www.rand.org/randeuropeShort Statistical Report
Use of childcare services in the EU
Member States and progress towards
the Barcelona targets
Short Statistical Report No. 1
Melinda Mills, Patrick Präg, Flavia Tsang, Katia Begall, James Derbyshire,
Laura Kohle, Céline Miani and Stijn Hoorens
RR-185-EC
April, 2014
Prepared for European Commission Directorate General- Justice and Fundamental Rights
JUST/2011/GEND/PR/1081/A4Preface
This report provides a current analysis of Member States’ progress towards meeting the ‘Barcelona
targets’. It initially examines the progress towards reaching the Barcelona targets by comparing and then
extending the results presented in 2008. However, it also extends the previous 2008 analysis in a number
of ways, namely it examines: the impact of parenthood on employment, public spending on childcare and
the cost, affordability and quality of childcare. The report also summarises the extent to which the
Barcelona targets have been met by Member States by the agreed deadline of 2010. Where possible, data
were examined for 27 EU Member States and where available, EFTA countries Norway and Iceland.
This short statistical report is part of a series of reports on gender equality in the work force and
reconciliation of work, family and private life. These reports have been commissioned by the Justice
Directorate General of the European Commission. The study was jointly undertaken by RAND Europe
and the University of Groningen. These reports should be of interest to policymakers and academics with
an interest in improving gender equality in the work force and improving the compatibility of having a
career in combination with a family and private life.
RAND Europe is an independent not-for-profit policy research organisation that aims to improve policy
and decision-making in the public interest, through research and analysis. The research group led by
Professor Melinda Mills at the University of Groningen focuses on research in the area of cross-national
comparative research, gender equality, work-family reconciliation and advanced statistical analysis.
This report has been peer-reviewed in accordance with RAND’s quality assurance standards. The authors
wish to thank the peer reviewers Jane Lewis (London School of Economics) and Sunil Patil (RAND
Europe) for their comments on earlier versions of this document. For more information about RAND
Europe or this study, please contact Stijn Hoorens (hoorens@rand.org). For more information about this
document, please contact Prof. Melinda Mills (m.c.mills@rug.nl).
RAND Europe RAND Europe
Rue de la Loi 82 Westbrook Centre, Milton Road
Brussels 1040 Cambridge CB4 1YG
Belgium United Kingdom
Tel. +32 2669 2400 Tel. +44 1223 353 329
iiiTable of Contents
Preface ......................................................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... v
Figures and boxes .................................................................................................................................... vii
Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... ix
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... xi
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
2. Progress towards meeting the Barcelona targets ........................................................................ 3
2.1. Previous research: progress towards the Barcelona targets until 2006.............................................3
2.2. Who has met the Barcelona targets? The situation in 2010 ...........................................................4
2.3. Progress towards the Barcelona targets between 2006 and 2010 ....................................................7
3. Parenthood and employment................................................................................................. 11
3.1. The potential link between parenthood, employment and childcare ...........................................11
3.2. Cultural and normative values about parenthood and childcare ..................................................14
4. Availability, affordability and quality of childcare .................................................................. 17
5. Public spending on childcare ................................................................................................. 25
6. Informal childcare ................................................................................................................. 27
6.1. Overview of informal childcare in Europe...................................................................................27
6.2. Disentangling different types of informal childcare .....................................................................30
7. Conclusion and policy recommendations ............................................................................... 35
7.1. Summary of main findings .........................................................................................................35
7.2. Policy recommendations .............................................................................................................37
7.3. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................43
References ...............................................................................................................................................45
vvi
Figures and boxes
Figure 1: Percentage of children up to three years of age cared for by formal arrangements by weekly time
spent in care, 2010........................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Percentage of children from three years of age to mandatory school age cared for by formal
arrangements by weekly time spent in care, 2010 ............................................................................. 7
Figure 3: Changes between 2006 and 2010 in percentage of children under three years cared for by formal
arrangements ................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Changes between 2006 and 2010 in percentage of children from three years of age to mandatory
school age cared for by formal arrangements .................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Employment rate of women in the EU, 2000–2010 ................................................................ 11
Figure 6: Difference between employment rate with and without children under 12, men and women 25–
49 years old, 2010.......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 7: Full-time employment rate of mothers and full-time formal childcare arrangements for children
up to three years old, 2010............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 8: Full-time employment rate of mothers and full-time formal childcare arrangements for children
between three years old and mandatory school age, 2006 and 2010 ............................................... 14
Figure 9: (Dis)approval of a full-time working woman with a child under three years of age, by male and
female adults .................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 10: Components of net childcare costs in 2008 for dual-earner couple family* ............................ 18
Figure 11: Reasons linked with childcare/elderly care for which men and women 15–64 are not working
or working part-time (EU-27 without DK and SE)........................................................................ 19
Figure 12: Formal care use by income quintiles, households with a childRAND Europe
Figure 16: Prevalence rates of informal childcare of children by age group, country, provider group, and
by number of hours ....................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 17: A typology of the progression towards the Barcelona targets .................................................. 37
Box 1: Coverage rate definition................................................................................................................. 3
viiiTables
Table 1: Women’s (aged 15–64 and with children up to mandatory school age) main reason for not
working or working part-time by perceived shortcomings of childcare* .......................................... 20
Table 2: Indicators of childcare quality ................................................................................................... 22
Table 3: Mandatory school ages across countries..................................................................................... 49
Table 4: Impact of availability and affordability of care arrangements as reason for not working or
working part-time, women with children under three years and three years to minimum compulsory
school age ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 5: Formal care use by income quintiles, households with a childAbbreviations
Country ISO Code
EU 27 Member States Belgium BE
Bulgaria BG
Czech Republic CZ
Denmark DK
Germany DE
Estonia EE
Ireland IE
Greece EL
Spain ES
France FR
Italy IT
Cyprus CY
Latvia LV
Lithuania LT
Luxembourg LU
Hungary HU
Malta MT
Netherlands NL
Austria AT
Poland PL
Portugal PT
Romania RO
Slovenia SI
Slovakia SK
Finland FI
xiRAND Europe
Sweden SE
United Kingdom UK
Acceding state Croatia HR
Candidate countries Montenegro ME
Iceland IS
Additional countries Norway NO
Switzerland CH
xii1. Introduction
More than ten years ago, in March 2002, a meeting of the European Council in Barcelona established a
set of targets known as the ‘Barcelona targets’. Member States adopted targets to improve the rate of
employment of parents of young children and, in particular, women in an effort to achieve greater gender
equality in the workforce. This initiative and the material in this report can also be seen in the context of
the EU’s social inclusion objective, as parental employment, and particularly maternal employment, has
been shown to be the main safeguard against child poverty (Lichter & Eggebeen 1994).
Specifically, the intention was to encourage Member States to ‘remove disincentives to female labour force
participation and strive, taking into account the demand for childcare facilities and in line with national
patterns of provision, to provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90 per cent of children between 3 years old
and the mandatory school age and at least 33 per cent of children under 3 years of age’ (Barcelona
European Council 2002). The European Commission reported on a mid-term assessment of progress
towards the achievement of these targets in 2008 (European Commission 2008). It showed that the
majority of Member States were yet to achieve the Barcelona targets and that some would require
considerable further efforts in order to achieve them.
This report provides a current analysis of the progress towards meeting these targets. It initially examines
the progress towards reaching the Barcelona targets by comparing and then extending the results
presented in 2008. However, it also extends the previous 2008 analysis in a number of ways, namely it
examines: the impact of parenthood on employment, public spending on childcare and the cost,
affordability and quality of childcare. The report also summarises the extent to which the Barcelona target
have been met by Member States by the agreed deadline of 2010. Where possible, data were examined for
27 EU Member States and where available, EFTA countries Norway and Iceland.
The structure for the report is as follows. Section 2 examines progress towards meeting the Barcelona
targets. Section 3 examines the impact of parenthood on employment, Section 4 considers the cost,
affordability and quality of childcare, Section 5 focuses on public spending on childcare. Section 6
examines the use of informal care and Section 7 summarises the central conclusions and finishes with a
reflection on the Barcelona targets and offers policy recommendations.
12. Progress towards meeting the Barcelona targets
2.1. Previous research: progress towards the Barcelona targets until 2006
In 2008, the European Commission presented a report on the implementation of the Barcelona targets
(European Commission 2008; SEC 2008). The report examined data for 2006 from the European Union
Statistics on Income and Living Condition (EU-SILC) database describing the percentage of children in
formal childcare arrangements in the two age groups of under three years of age and between three years
of age and the mandatory school age.1
Box 1: Coverage rate definition
As outlined in SEC (2008), the coverage rates are calculated as the number of children cared for by formal
arrangements as a percentage of all children of the same age group. They measure the actual use of existing childcare
provision in the EU for the two age groups and not directly the provision by Member States for instance in terms of
number of childcare places available.
It is important to note that when interpreting the coverage rate statistics in this report, examining the use of
childcare facilities does not provide a direct answer to the question of whether demand for childcare has been met.
Other external factors can impact the demand for childcare such as the use of informal childcare arrangements by
other family members, the maternity/parental leave system and unemployment levels. It is therefore essential to note
that a relatively low coverage rate in certain countries may be indicative of alternative strategies to care for young
children (e.g. extended parental leave options, informal care) and not necessarily as a shortage of childcare. The
impact of parental leave systems on the coverage rate, however, is likely to be very limited due to the fact that
parental income replacements are often offered over a period of less than six months in most countries.
The EU-SILC was chosen to be the European statistical source for measuring coverage rates. The indicator is
disaggregated by two levels of usage and two age groups. The two levels of usage are: 0 to 29 hours; and 30 hour or
more); and the two age groups are: children aged under 3; and children aged between three years and the mandatory
school age.
The key findings of the 2008 report were that on average in 2006, 26 per cent of children under three in
the EU were cared for under formal arrangements (compared to the Barcelona target of 33 per cent); and
84 per cent of children aged between three and the mandatory school age in the EU were cared for under
formal arrangements (compared to a Barcelona target of 90 per cent). It should be noted that the
1
Mandatory school age is the age at which compulsory education starts. It typically begins between five and seven
years of age, however, the exact mandatory school age differs from country to country.
3RAND Europe
Barcelona targets do not explicitly consider hours of use, and that about half of the children who were
cared for under formal arrangement were in formal care for less than 30 hours a week (14 per cent of 26
per cent for those who were under three years of age, and 44 per cent of 84 per cent for those who were
aged between three and the mandatory school age).
In 2006, there was significant variation across the EU in terms of the use of formal childcare arrangements
for both of the age groups defined in the Barcelona targets. Although the average for the EU as a whole
was approaching the Barcelona targets for both age groups, it is essential to note that this average was
skewed by the fact that some countries (such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands for children
under three) were at this point already achieving a percentage considerably higher than the Barcelona
target. For childcare under three years of age, many Member States, such as for example, the Czech
Republic (2 per cent), Poland (2 per cent) and Austria (4 per cent) still needed to make considerable
progress to comply with the targets. The subsequent section now updates and compares these findings
with more recent data to judge the progress in meeting the Barcelona targets by 2009/10.
2.2. Who has met the Barcelona targets? The situation in 2010
The following analyses present the percentage of children cared for by formal childcare arrangements,
using the EU-SILC 2010 (Eurostat 2012). It is also essential to go beyond the percentage in childcare to
also examine the number of hours spent in these arrangements when considering progress towards
achievement of the Barcelona targets. Examining simple percentages can be misleading when considered
in isolation since formal childcare arrangements may be of little assistance in allowing women with
children to enter into paid employment if they only cover a small number of hours per week. In order to
enable parents to enter the workforce and sustain employment, childcare needs to cover 30 or more hours
per week.
4Figure 1 shows the percentage of children under three years old cared for by formal arrangements and
broken down by the time spent in care per week using the EU-SILC data for 2010. The countries are
ordered with the best performing Member States shown on the left. Examining the total coverage
irrespective of the number of hours spent in formal childcare arrangements, ten Member States plus
Iceland and Norway have met or surpassed the Barcelona objective of a 33 per cent coverage rate
(Demark, Sweden, the Netherlands, (Norway), France, (Iceland), Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Belgium,
Luxembourg and the United Kingdom). Two other Member States (Ireland, Finland) and Switzerland
have reached an intermediate level of coverage of over 25 per cent. This means that 15 Member States still
need to make considerable progress in order to meet the established targets. Notably, there is large
variation between countries in the number of hours spent in formal childcare arrangements. Usage of full
time formal childcare (over 30 hours a week) is particularly high in Denmark (68 per cent), and is
predominant (with a full time to part time childcare ratio of 90:10 or higher) in four Member States
(Slovakia, Poland, Latvia and Estonia) and Iceland. In contrast, in the Czech Republic, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands and Switzerland, the use of formal childcare is predominately part-time (under
30 hours a week).
5Figure 1: Percentage of children up to three years of age cared for by formal arrangements by
weekly time spent in care, 2010
100 From 1 to 29 hours
30 hours or over
% of children under three years
80
60
40
Barcelona target
20
0
NL
EU-27
HU
HR
LU
CH
DK
UK
CY
DE
LV
RO
NO
LT
EL
CZ
PL
EE
SK
SE
FR
IS
ES
BE
IE
IT
MT
AT
PT
BG
FI
SI
SOURCE: Eurostat, ilc_caindformal, extracted: 12 December 2013.
NOTE: Eurostat has flagged that for Finland (FI) there has been a break in the time series for both data points.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of children between three years old and the mandatory school age cared for by
formal arrangements broken down by time spent in care per week using the EU-SILC data for 2010. It
should be noted that the mandatory school age varies by Member State, and for a summary of these
differences, refer to Appendix A. Examining the total coverage irrespective of the number of hours spent
in formal childcare arrangements, eleven Member States (Belgium, Spain, France, Sweden, Germany,
Estonia, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom) plus Iceland have met or
surpassed the Barcelona objective of a 90 per cent coverage rate. Three other Member States (Italy,
Austria, Cyprus) plus Norway are close to achieving the target, having reached an intermediate level of
coverage of over 80 per cent or over. (It should also be noted that Luxembourg, Hungary and Portugal all
have 79 per cent coverage). This means that 13 Member States still need to make progress in order to
meet the established targets. This is particularly the case in some of the Eastern European countries,
including acceding country Croatia, but also Lithuania, Romania, Latvia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Poland.
Notably, there is large variation between countries in the number of hours spent in formal childcare
arrangements. Usage of full time formal childcare (over 30 hours a week) is particularly high in some
Member States and countries (in particular, Iceland, Estonia, Slovenia, Italy, Norway and Portugal). In
contrast, in the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Austria and Switzerland, the use of formal
childcare are predominately part-time (under 30 hours a week).
6Use of childcare services in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets
Figure 2: Percentage of children from three years of age to mandatory school age cared for by
formal arrangements by weekly time spent in care, 2010
100 From 1 to 29 hours
Barcelona target 30 hours or over
80
to mandatory school age
% of children from three
60
40
20
0
DE
DK
UK
CY
LU
HU
CH
HR
LV
NL
EU-27
NO
RO
CZ
EL
LT
PL
BE
IS
ES
SE
FR
EE
IE
SK
SI
FI
BG
IT
AT
PT
MT
SOURCE: Eurostat, ilc_caindformal, extracted: 12 December 2013.
NOTE: Mandatory school age varies by country. See Appendix A for a summary. Eurostat has flagged that for
Finland (FI) there has been a break in the time series for both data points.
To conclude, when we examined both targets for formal childcare of children under the age of three and
aged three years to mandatory school age, eight Member States plus Iceland have met both targets. In
addition to Iceland, these are: Belgium, Sweden, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Denmark and
the United Kingdom. Fourteen Member States, plus Switzerland and candidate country Croatia have so
far failed to meet both targets. These fourteen Member States are: Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Hungary, Austria, Greece, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, Czech Republic and Poland.
2.3. Progress towards the Barcelona targets between 2006 and 2010
Across Europe there has been little progress between 2006 and 2010 in terms of meeting the Barcelona
target of childcare for 33 per cent of children under the age of three (as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure
4). In both figures, the vertical axis represents progress made (i.e. change in percentage points between
2006 and 2010) and the horizontal axis represents performance (i.e. percentage of children in formal
care). The graph is then divided into four quadrants:
The top right quadrant is labeled ‘moving further ahead,’ indicating that the target was met in
2010 and a positive change since 2006.
The bottom right quadrant represents those ‘losing momentum’, i.e. the target was met in 2010,
but a negative or no change since 2006.
The top left quadrant is the ‘catching up’ group, which indicates that the target has not been met,
but that there was a positive change since 2006.
7RAND Europe
The bottom left quadrant of is labeled ‘falling further behind’ which indicates that targets were
not met, and that there was a negative or no change since 2006.
Those who have moved further ahead include:
Eight Member States (France, Slovenia, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg,
Portugal and United Kingdom) plus Iceland, for the younger age group.
Seven Member States (Spain, Sweden, Germany, Estonia, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the
United Kingdom) plus Iceland, for the older age group.
Those who have lost momentum include:
Two Member States (Spain but more so for Belgium) for the younger age group.
Three Member States (France, Denmark and Belgium) for the older age group.
Those who have been catching up include:
Nine Member States (Ireland, Lithuania, Austria, Estonia, Malta, Finland, Germany, Hungary,
and Czech Republic), for the younger age group.
Ten Member States (Austria, Luxembourg, Hungary, Portugal, Malta, Czech Republic,
Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Greece) for the older age group.
Those who have fallen behind include:
Seven Member States (Latvia, Cyprus, Poland, Greece, Slovakia, Italy and Bulgaria) for the
younger age group.
Six Member States (Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Ireland) for the older age
group.
It is encouraging that the majority of the Member States is categorised as either ‘moving further ahead’ or
‘catching up’. Between 2006 and 2010, however, the increase in the percentage of children being cared for
under formal arrangements in the EU-25 Member States is small – from 26 per cent to 29 per cent for
the less than three years old group and from 84 per cent to 85 per cent for the three to mandatory school
age group.
It is essential to note that the EU-SILC data that have been presented here are potentially unreliable due
to small sample sizes for some of the countries (see notes under Figure 1 and 2).
Additionally, for the countries that have made no or very little progress, their grouping is often sensitive
to rounding errors. For example, Figure 3 shows that Latvia has made no progress, but the manner in
which the data is rounded may indicate ‘no change’ even if there was a slight change, but this change was
under 1 percentage point (in fact, under 0.5). This would cause the Member State to be reclassified from
the ‘catching up’ quadrant to the ‘falling further behind’ quadrant. Conversely, for a country such as the
Czech Republic, the data was rounded up to 1 percentage point, which places them in the ‘catching up’
quadrant.
8Use of childcare services in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets
Figure 3: Changes between 2006 and 2010 in percentage of children under three years cared
for by formal arrangements
Catching up Moving further ahead
IE FR
10
(Percentage point change 2006–10)
LT SI
IS SE
5 AT LU NL
PT DK
MT DE EU-25
Progress
EE FI UK
CZ HU No change
0 LV
PL ES
SK EL CY
IT
-5 Barcelona target BE
BG
-10
Falling further behind Losing momentum
0 20 40 60 80
Performance
(% of children under 3 in formal childcare in 2010)
SOURCE: Eurostat, ilc_caindformal, extracted: 15 November 2012.
NOTE: For Norway, Switzerland, Croatia, and Romania, figures were not available for 2006. These countries are
therefore not included in this figure.
Figure 4: Changes between 2006 and 2010 in percentage of children from three years of age to
mandatory school age cared for by formal arrangements
Catching up LU Moving
Barcelona target
20 further
(Percentage point change 2006–10)
MT
ahead
15 PL
AT
LT
10 SI
EL HU
EE
Progress
5 LV CZ PT ES
EU-25 IS
NLDE SE
0 No change
UK
FI CY FR BE
SK
IT IE
BG
-5 DK
-10
Losing
-15 Falling further behind momentum
40 60 80 100
Performance
(% of children between 3 and mandatory school age
in formal childcare in 2010)
SOURCE: Eurostat, ilc_caindformal, extracted: 15 November 2012.
NOTE: See note above. See Appendix A for description of assumptions regarding mandatory school ages.
93. Parenthood and employment
3.1. The potential link between parenthood, employment and childcare
Substantial progress has been made with respect to the employment rate of women over the past 10 years,
with an increase of almost 5 percentage points in the EU-27 as a whole (Figure 5). This section examines
the employment of women, with a particular focus on how their employment is affected by parenthood.
Figure 5: Employment rate of women in the EU, 2000–2010
64
63
Female employment rates in EU-27
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SOURCE: Eurostat EU-LFS, data code: tsdec420, extracted: 4 December 2012.
The Barcelona targets were set under the understanding that parenthood has a high impact on
employment rate of women. Member States were encouraged to focus on the creation of formal childcare
arrangements that cover a sufficient number of hours per week to enable parents to acquire and sustain
employment. This was regardless of whether this was achieved through encouraging private-sector
provision or via the public sector. It is therefore important to examine the association between
parenthood, employment and childcare.
Figure 6 illustrates the potential link between parenthood and employment. It plots the indicator of the
employment rate difference of parents versus nonparents for those aged 25-49 years old. Specifically, it is
the difference in the employment rate for persons with at least one child below the age of 12 minus the
employment rate of persons without any children under the age of 12. The figure demonstrates a substantial
11RAND Europe
gender divide of parenthood, with men with children under the age of 12 having higher rates of
employment compared to those without any children. It also clearly illustrates that motherhood is
negatively correlated with employment across the vast majority of European Union Member States, with
sizeable differences for some. In the Czech Republic and Hungary, for instance, the employment rate for
women with children below the age of twelve is more than 29.9 and 27.4 percentage points lower than
their counterparts without children, respectively. Here it is important to note national differences in the
length of parental leave and whether woman on parental leave are counted as being employed. In the
Czech Republic, for instance, women are provided with 28 weeks of maternity leave (with a replacement
wage of 69 per cent) and up to four years of parental leave, but without the provision of subsidised child
care (Robila 2012). In Hungary parental leave is up to two years (Robila 2012). Although the previous
figure demonstrated that the employment participation of women has increased over the past 10 years,
these results demonstrate that the differences in employment between parents and non-parents remain
persistent over time. In essence, the underlying goal of the Barcelona targets to increase the employment
participation of parents and specifically women, therefore, remains unmet in many countries.
For the EU-27 as a whole, the difference between the employment rate for women with and without
children under twelve is greater than 10 percentage points.
Figure 6: Difference between employment rate with and without children under 12, men and
women 25–49 years old, 2010
SOURCE: Eurostat EU-LFS data 2010, own calculations.
In order to better understand the potential link between formal childcare usage and the employment rates,
Figure 7 and Figure 8 below illustrate employment rates of mothers2 aged 25–49 and full-time (30+
hours) formal childcare arrangements in the same chart, for the two age groups respectively. The analysis
of employment described below covers full-time employment. It should be noted that ‘full-time’ in the
context of employment typically refers to 40 hours per week of work (plus the time required for
commuting to work), whereas ‘full-time’ in the context of formal childcare is defined as usage of 30 hours
2
‘Mothers’ here refers to those women aged 25–49 living in a household with at least one child under mandatory
school age.
12Use of childcare services in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets
or more. In other words, the two definitions of ‘full-time’, one for the working parent and one for the
child, are not fully compatible. For example, even if a child spends 30 hours in formal childcare, it may
not be sufficient for the mother to take up a full-time job and which may necessitate another form of care
if this is not taken up by the father.
Figure 7, the plot of employment rate of mothers of 0–2 year olds against full-time formal care coverage
rate, shows only a weak relationship between these mothers’ employment rate and full-time childcare
coverage. While many countries conform to the expectation that low full-time usage would be associated
with low employment rates (e.g. the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) and high full-
time usage is associated with high employment rates (e.g. Denmark, Slovenia, Portugal and Sweden),
some other countries suggest an absence of a correlation, where full-time usage was low but the
employment rate was high). What is clear is that none of the countries has a low employment rate coupled
with a high full-time childcare coverage rate.
Figure 7: Full-time employment rate of mothers and full-time formal childcare arrangements for
children up to three years old, 2010
80
LT
SI
70
Full timployment rate of mothers
HR CY PT DK
60
RO
50 P L EL
LV
BG SE
40 IE EB
S E
LUFI FR
IT
30 AT
UK EE
MT
20 DE
SK
CZ HU
10 NL
0
0 20 40 60 80
Full -time (30+ hours) formal childcare coverage rate
SOURCE: EU-LFS data 2010 and EU-SILC data 2010.
NOTES: A number of data points are computed based on small samples and are not considered statistically
reliable. These include: AT, BG, CY, CZ, EL, IE, LT, NL, PL, RO, SK, UK, HR, EE, and MT. The four countries which
overlapped with each other (with a full-time childcare coverage rate of 18–20 per cent and employment of 38–42
per cent) were ES, BE, LU and FI.
Figure 8, the plot of employment rate of mothers of three year olds to mandatory school age against full-
time formal care coverage rate, shows a potential relationship between these mothers’ employment rate
and full-time childcare coverage. For example, Slovenia is characterised by a high employment rate and a
high full-time childcare usage, whereas the Netherlands is characterised by a low full-time employment
rate and a low full-time childcare usage. However, it is interesting to note that, in a few cases (e.g. Croatia
13RAND Europe
and Poland) a relatively high employment rate of mothers is still possible at low levels of full-time
childcare usage.
Figure 8: Full-time employment rate of mothers and full-time formal childcare arrangements for
children between three years old and mandatory school age, 2006 and 2010
80
Full-time employment rate of mothers
SI
70 PT
LT DK
HR CY LV
60 BG FI EE
PL
RO
50 EL SK
CZ SE
HU
FR
40 ES
BE
LU IT
30 IE
MT
20 UK
AT DE
10
NL
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Full -time (30+ hours) formal childcare coverage rate
SOURCE: EU-LFS data 2010 and EU-SILC data 2010.
NOTE: The data point for RO is computed based on small samples and are not considered statistically reliable.
3.2. Cultural and normative values about parenthood and childcare
The association observed in Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows that formal childcare services are likely to be
only one of the possible determinants in women’s employment. This raises the question as to what other
factors may influence the mothers of young children to decide to participate in the labour force. Using the
European Social Survey (2006), we engaged in an additional analysis that examines the cultural and
normative values about parenthood and childcare of both men and women.
Figure 9 provides evidence of the level of approval, ambivalence (neither approves nor disapproves) and
disapproval of whether a woman with a child under three years of age should have a full-time job. A first
conclusion is that more than 50 per cent of adults approve that a woman with a child under three years of
age should have a full-time job in more than 50 per cent of the countries. Second, there is a striking
similarity of the level of approval of women with young children working in a full-time job with the
actual levels of childcare enrolment and employment rate found in Figure 7. Third, the low levels of
approval in countries such as Switzerland, Austria and Germany provide a further indication as to why
some policies may have been ineffective or even non-existent. In these countries, the negative perception
of childcare may operate not only as a barrier to the wider use of childcare, but lack of momentum to
create policies. Policies to raise awareness of the benefits of childcare may be needed to address this
14Use of childcare services in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets
barrier. Finally, although the full-time employment of young mothers is generally approved in nations
such as Poland, Cyprus and Slovenia, there appears to be a gap particularly in the availability and
affordability of childcare (see discussion in the next section), which needs to be addressed for women to
realise their labour market intentions.
In summary, the large cross-national variation across the EU is related to institutional policies, but also
national cultural values concerning mother’s obligations and children’s needs.
Figure 9: (Dis)approval of a full-time working woman with a child under three years of age, by
male and female adults
100
80
60
%
40
20
0
HU
CH
NL
NO
DK
CY
UK
DE
FR
BE
SE
ES
EU
IE
SK
EE
PL
FI
SI
BG
PT
AT
Approve Neutral Disapprove
EU refers to average for the 20 EU Member States in this Figure
SOURCE: European Social Survey 2006/07 (authors’ caclulations).
Multivariate analysis will be required to better understand the relative effects of these different factors. For
example, OECD (2012) found that increased enrolment in childcare has a positive effect on female
employment, over and above the effect of public spending on paid leave and tax rates on the second
earner. The OECD (2013) finds that the effect of childcare on female employment is even stronger when
it is combined with adequate financial incentives for the second earner.
154. Availability, affordability and quality of childcare
It is not necessarily the case that countries that make slow progress towards meeting the Barcelona targets
have entirely failed to establish formal childcare arrangements. Rather, it may be that existing
arrangements are not perceived as suitable or affordable by those expected to use them. This section
therefore evaluates the perceived cost, affordability and quality of childcare across the EU Member States.
Childcare arrangements can only assist parents to enter and sustain employment participation if they are
considered to be affordable and of sufficient quality.
Table 4 (in Appendix B) shows the percentage of women’s reported reasons for not working or working
part-time in relation to childcare availability and affordability by age of the youngest child. The table
suggests that across the EU-27, about a quarter of women with a young child (26 per cent and 25 per cent
for women with a child under three and a child between three and mandatory school age, respectively)
who are not working or working part-time report that suitable care services for children are not available
or affordable.
A closer look at Table 4 reveals substantial cross-national variation in the share of mothers who attribute
their not working full-time to care-related reasons: In Romania, Germany, and Latvia, between 41per cent
to 56 per cent of mothers with children under three who do not work or are employed part-time attribute
this to lack of affordability and availability of child-care. In countries such as Finland, Slovakia, or the
Netherlands this share ranges between only 6 per cent and 7 per cent. For mothers with children in the
three to mandatory school age bracket, there is similar variation, from 6 per cent in the Netherlands to 47
per cent in Germany. When comparing these figures to those displayed in Figures 1 and 2 showing the
use of formal childcare arrangements, we can observe that there is hardly any relationship across countries
between formal childcare usage rates and the share of mothers not working full-time due to childcare
reasons. While it is true that some countries – for instance the aforementioned Romania, Germany and
Latvia – low formal childcare usage and high rates of mothers not working full-time coincide, this is not
the case for most other countries. Therefore, increasing formal childcare usage might boost female labour
supply in some countries, but the impact might be more limited in others. It is important to note that due
to sometimes small sample sizes and the subjective nature of the information elicited, definitive
conclusions regarding this point remain elusive.
Turning from self-reported perceptions about childcare to more objective target information, Figure 10
suggests that in most Member States across the European Union, childcare costs are high, but are offset by
similarly high childcare benefits. This is not true, however, for the United Kingdom and Ireland. As the
EU-SILC data in Figures 1 and 2 illustrated, a relatively low percentage of households in these two
17RAND Europe
countries use full-time formal childcare arrangements. Thus, Figure 10 suggests that the underlying reason
may be attributed to affordability.
Figure 10: Components of net childcare costs in 2008 for dual-earner couple family*
Childcare-related costs and benefits,
60
40
20
% of AW
0
-20
-40
CH
LU
HU
NL
UK
DE
DK
CZ
NO
IE
FR
IS
PL
EL
SI
FI
ES
SK
SE
EE
BE
AT
PT
Childcare fee Other benefits Tax reductions
Childcare benefits Net cost % of net family income
SOURCE: OECD (2011), Doing Better for Families, Figure 4.A2.1 B – doi: 10.1787/888932393426
NOTE: *Where the partner earns the average wage (AW) and the female partner earns 50 per cent of the
average wage.
Figure 11 corroborates the view that Member States may not necessarily be making slow progress towards
achievement of the Barcelona targets due to a failure to create formal childcare arrangements. Table 1
shows the main reason linked to childcare reported by men and women for not working or only working
part-time, according to their perception of childcare services.
Figure 11 illustrates the different reasons for not working or working part-time related to childcare. It
shows that there are few differences across the sexes and between the age groups of the youngest child.
The main reason reported in all groups is that childcare is too expensive, followed by a lack of services,
followed by other reasons linked to childcare. The least popular reason among the four options appears to
be concerns about the quality of childcare. When interpreting Figure 11, it has to be kept in mind that
the group of men not working or working part-time due to reasons of childcare is very small in absolute
terms.
18Use of childcare services in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets
Figure 11: Reasons linked with childcare/elderly care for which men and women 15–64 are not
working or working part-time (EU-27 without DK and SE)
Men w/ youngest
child under 3
Women w/ youngest
child under 3
Men w/ youngest
child between 3 and MSA
Women w/ youngest
child between 3 and MSA
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of individuals aged 15-64 not working or working part-time
No services Too Insufficient Other
available expensive quality reasons
SOURCE: EU-LFS 2010 AHM, own calculations.
NOTE: Figure refers to EU-27 (without DK and SE) and men and women 15–64 not working or working part-time
for reasons linked with childcare/elderly care, by age of children. MSA: mandatory school age
The following Table 1 thus focuses on women only and does not distinguish between different age groups
of the children. It shows that across the EU-27 as a whole, 25 per cent of women who do not work or
work part-time claim that it is due to a lack of availability of childcare services; 53 per cent because
childcare is too expensive and only 4 per cent due to childcare being of insufficient quality. There is some
variation across countries: In some countries, namely Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria,
and Croatia, the lack of childcare services is the most frequently reported reason for not working or
working part-time. Concern over the quality of childcare as a reason for not working or working part-time
is rare, except in Bulgaria (13 per cent) and Hungary (20 per cent).
19RAND Europe
Table 1: Women’s (aged 15–64 and with children up to mandatory school age) main reason for
not working or working part-time by perceived shortcomings of childcare*
Member States No childcare services available Too expensive Insufficient quality
EU-27 25 53 4
BE 62 32 (0)
BG 30 35 13
CZ 47 (10) (3)
DK : : :
DE 25 31 :
EE : (63) :
IE 8 85 3
EL 21 67 (6)
ES 18 60 (2)
FR 33 57 :
IT 37 57 5
CY : 57 :
LV (27) 35 :
LT : : :
LU (34) (28) :
HU 32 25 20
MT : : :
NL (13) 71 :
AT 57 22 :
PL 35 57 (4)
PT : 60 :
RO 13 80 (6)
SI : (46) :
SK (29) (36) :
FI (27) : :
SE : : :
UK 10 73 4
HR 48 (34) :
MK (22) (59) :
SOURCE: EU-LFS data 2010, ad hoc module ‘Reconciliation between work and family life’.
NOTES: *Who are not working due to reasons linked to childcare/elderly care (In % of those not working due to
childcare/elderly care reasons); EU-27 without SE and DK. Numbers in parentheses: unreliable; ':' = not available
(missing countries, a flags, c flags, missing values on certain columns)
Table 1 suggests that the main problem in meeting the Barcelona targets is not that individuals perceive
that services are of insufficient quality, but rather that they are either too expensive or not available. It is
important to note that due to small sample sizes and the subjective nature of the data, it is not possible to
make definitive conclusions regarding this point.
In the European debate about public childcare, households with children are often displayed as a
homogeneous group. An important stratifying feature in the context of the use of public childcare
20Use of childcare services in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets however, is economic resources that parents have. Recent research has demonstrated that access to formal childcare of children under the age of three is socially stratified in the sense that parents with a higher socio-economic level are more likely to send their children to formal childcare (Ghysels & Van Lancker 2011; Wirth & Lichtenberger 2012). This is problematic since additional research has shown that children from lower socioeconomic strata are actually the ones most likely to benefit from formal childcare (Almond & Currie 2011; Datta Gupta & Simonsen 2010; Havnes & Mogstad 2011). Figure 12: Formal care use by income quintiles, households with a child
RAND Europe
Table 2 shows that there is vast variation with respect to maximum group sizes. The smallest maximum
group size mentioned is reported for France, where some groups of children may contain four children at
the most. However, even within France, there is considerable variation, as the maximum of four children
only applies to childminders, whereas nursery schools contain groups of up to 30 children (Plantenga and
Remery 2009). This is close to the largest maximum group size which is reported for the United Kingdom
(35 children). Plantenga and Remery (2009) conclude from these data for maximum group size that
throughout Europe, group sizes range from 10 to 14 children for those below three years of age and from
20 to 25 children for those from age three to mandatory school age. Regarding the child-to-staff ratio,
there is also some variation from 1:3 in some countries such as Malta, Denmark, or the United Kingdom
to 1:25 in Portugal. In general, regulations concerning the child-to-staff ration range in the youngest age
class from 1:3 to 1:6 and in the older age class from 1:6 to 1:14. With respect to the required qualification
of staff, there is less variance. A few countries clearly require staff with tertiary education (Iceland, Cyprus,
Slovak Republic, Portugal). Most countries, however, have less strict rules with respect to the minimum
educational requirements. But it is important to note that these figures refer to legal regulations, and it is
difficult to ascertain how far they depart from actual practice.
Table 2: Indicators of childcare quality
MS Maximum group size Child-to-staff ratio Qualification of staff
MT 6 1:3 to 1:6 :
IS : 1:4 Tertiary
CY 16 1:6 Tertiary
SK 17 to 20.9 1:10.6 Tertiary
IE 24 1:3 to 1:8 :
PT 4 to 25 1:6 to 1:25 Tertiary
DK : 1:3 to 1:6 Secondary to tertiary
FI : 1:4 to 1:7 Secondary to tertiary
EE 14 to 20 1:7 to 1:10 Secondary to tertiary
ES 14.1 to 21 1:10 Secondary to tertiary
IT : 1:5 to 1:10 Secondary to tertiary
SI 12 to 22 1:9.6 Secondary to tertiary
LI 10 to 20 1:5 to 1:14 Secondary to tertiary
LV 12 to 24 . Secondary to tertiary
CZ 23.1 1:12.5 Secondary to tertiary
SE 16.7 to 31.7 1:5.1 to 1:18.9 Secondary to tertiary
BE 8 1:4 Secondary
22Use of childcare services in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets
MS Maximum group size Child-to-staff ratio Qualification of staff
EL 12 to 25 1:18.5 Secondary to tertiary
PL : 1:15 Post-secondary
LT 10 1:10 Secondary
NL 12 to 20 1:4 to 1:8 Secondary
FR 4 to 30 1:7 to 1:19 Secondary to tertiary
HU 12 to 25 1:6 to 1:11 Secondary vocational
AT 5 to 20 1:5 to 1:14 Secondary vocational
UK 30 to 35 1:3 to 1:8 Secondary
DE : 1:6.4 to 1:10.5 Secondary vocational
NO : 1:8 to 1:16 Secondary
BG : 1:5.9 :
LU : : :
RO : : :
235. Public spending on childcare
Figure 13 graphs the public spending on childcare and early-education services as a percentage of the
national GDP. It is immediately apparent that the total spending as a percentage of GDP is particularly
high in Denmark and Sweden, which are also the countries where the impact of parenthood on
employment was particularly low (see Figure 6). It is also noteworthy that the link between parenthood
and employment shown in Figure 6 is quite high for some countries such as the United Kingdom even
though their spending on childcare is relatively high.3 This might suggest that some countries are able to
translate spending into suitable and affordable services more efficiently than others, a point to which we
return to in our conclusions and policy recommendations. It is not simply the case that additional
spending is sufficient to improve the availability and affordability of services. It may also be that different
approaches to provision of services results in greater impact. Some countries may provide parents with
benefits related to childcare, but the actual childcare itself is primarily provided through the private sector,
whereas other countries provide services through the public sector.
3
In the UK, a substantial share of children are living in very low work-intensity households, requiring therefore no
childcare. This can be attributed to the design of benefits, which disincentivise employment take-up (European
Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 2012, 75)
25RAND Europe
Figure 13: Public expenditure on childcare and early education services as percentage of GDP,
2007
1.5 Childcare spending
Pre-primary spending
1
% of GDP
.5
0
NL
EU-27
DK
UK
LU
CH
LV
HU
DE
CY
NO
RO
PL
EL
LT
CZ
FR
SE
EE
IE
IS
BE
ES
SK
IT
MT
PT
AT
FI
BG
SI
SOURCE: OECD Family database, Indicator PF3.1 (2009).
NOTE 1: CY refers to Southern Cyprus only.
NOTE 2: Figures for Austria, Ireland and Spain cannot be disaggregated by educational level.
NOTE 3: Pre-primary spending as a % of GDP not available for Greece and Luxembourg.
Public expenditure on childcare and early educational services includes all public financial support (in cash, in-kind
or through the tax system) for families with children participating in formal daycare services (e.g. crèches, day care
centres and family day care for children under three) and pre-school institutions (including kindergartens and day-
care centres which usually provide an educational content as well as traditional care for children aged from three
to five, inclusive).
266. Informal childcare
6.1. Overview of informal childcare in Europe
The Barcelona targets is primarily concerned with formal types of childcare, i.e. education at pre-school or
compulsory school, childcare at centre-based services before or after school hours (before/after), and
childcare at day-care centres. However, informal types of childcare play a crucial role in many countries.
Childminders or grandparents, household members (who are not parents), friends, neighbours, and
relatives sometimes care informally for children. Countries show distinct patterns with respect to the
types of childcare (e.g. Wirth & Lichtenberger 2012) used by parents. Figure 11 illustrates the variation
across countries.
27RAND Europe
Figure 14: Percentage of children in informal childcare by age group and country, 2010
NL
EL
PT
RO
CY
SI
CH
CZ
AT
UK
LU
PL
EE
IS
SK
MT
IT
IE
EU-27
HR
HU
FR
BE
DE
LV
LT
NO
FI
SE Less than 3 years
DK 3 years to minimum
BG compulsory school age
0 20 40 60
% of children in informal childcare, 2010
SOURCE: Eurostat, ilc_caindother, date of extraction: 28 November 2012.
In the Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Cyprus, more than half of the children under three
years of age are being cared for informally. Conversely, in countries such as Norway, Finland and Sweden,
only a small minority of young children are in informal childcare. With respect to the children in the age
bracket from three years of age to minimum compulsory school age in informal childcare, the figures are
rather similar: only a few exceptions, such as Portugal, Croatia, Belgium and Lithuania, show a great
discrepancy between the age groups. In Croatia, Belgium and Lithuania, the share of older children in
informal childcare is substantially larger than the share of under-three year olds, whereas in Portugal the
opposite pattern emerges. To put things in context, in general the percentage of children under three years
of age who are in informal care is rather high when compared with the Barcelona target of 33 per cent,
with about half of the countries under study surpassing this benchmark.
What these figures, however, do not convey is whether parents use these informal types of childcare
because they prefer them or because formal childcare is not available or affordable. Another caveat is that
28You can also read
